A JOURNALIST pal of mine once gave me some unprompted advice – “if you’re contextualising, you’re losing” and it certainly felt like it over the weekend. I proposed, internally, some changes to the SNP National Executive Committee because I (and others) are concerned about its focus and direction, which were brought into sharp relief lately with a few decisions.
In an effort to be transparent and accountable to my members in Stirling, I copied it to all 1600 of them, whereupon persons unknown leaked it and had it on Twitter within half an hour. I regret the leak. It was done to cause trouble and to an extent it did but it was me who sent it and I should have thought more defensively.
I have already apologised to Kirsten Oswald, our business convener. For the avoidance of doubt it assuredly did not come from me. Leaks corrode trust, make discussions more difficult and they are not my style, I’ve been around long enough to know that what goes around comes around and they’re a bad way to do business.
In my 16 years in elected public office, 15 in Brussels, then now at Westminster, I have always promoted, voted for and advocated the equalities agenda at home, across the EU and internationally. Look at my record and you’ll not find a single time I voted the other way. I was the SNP’s first parliamentarian to come out (if not the first gay parliamentarian) and equalities are close to my heart, full stop. But to read some of the attacks the leak has caused, one would think I was attempting to shut equalities down, when in fact I’m seeking to boost them.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: SNP's opponents will use signs of apparent division against us
My fundamental point is that the SNP NEC has a whopping 42 members. Let that sink in. While I supported the additions, I think we need to recognise when something isn’t working as intended, especially when there are other ways to organise ourselves.
Broadening the NEC to bring in a wider range of voices, while a laudable aim, has to my mind diluted discussion of the interests of the whole of Scotland and building the case for independence. We are the Scottish National Party – we must reflect and work upon the priorities of the people of Scotland, not our own projects.
So I have proposed the creation of a new forum for regional reps, and a boost to the status of the existing Equalities Forum. I’ll bring forward amendments to conference and if the members support it, then I think they will be useful changes that will focus our NEC, boost the equalities discussion by focusing it on holding the NEC to account, and likewise boost the regional agenda.
Other reforms are possible, of course, and I’m open to them, too. Just last week Julie Hepburn and Alex Kerr wrote in this paper about some worthy ideas, and we’re not short of reform proposals.
Because we need to be match-fit for the battles ahead, and I think we need to refocus urgently, uniting around what unites us – independence.
The people of Scotland are anxious about Covid-19 and the economy and are appalled at what the Tories we rejected are doing to us with Brexit, a power grab against Holyrood and who knows what with future trade deals.
READ MORE: Demands for SNP NEC to rerun controversial ‘secret’ vote
They trust us on these real issues, and expect us to be working flat out on them. We are, but it would sometimes be easy to imagine otherwise.
A cautionary tale – Donald Trump won Wisconsin in the last US presidential election because, in part, he was able to attack the local Democrats as being out of touch, spending all their time debating gender neutral bathrooms while the economy was going to the dogs.
It was probably untrue, but impressions matter. Likewise, Labour in the 1980s was able to be portrayed as “Loony Left” and out of touch precisely because some of its leading members were.
We are the Scottish National Party. We are in touch, and must not make the same mistake.
Independence is nothing unless everyone matters. Equality is at the heart of our proposition for a better Scotland, it is not either/or. A boosted, properly resourced Equalities Forum will better focus our internal discussion on how to build that case. I’m open, of course, to a discussion about other ideas, but I am firm in my view reform is necessary.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel